Response monitoring in metastatic breast cancer: a comparison of survival times between FDG-PET/CT and CE-CT

Baseline and early 18F-FDG PET/CT evaluations as predictors of progression-free survival in metastatic breast cancer patients treated with targeted anti-CDK therapy

BACKGROUND

Exploring the value of baseline and early 18F-FDG PET/CT evaluations in prediction PFS in ER+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer patients treated with a cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor in combination with an endocrine therapy.

METHODS

Sixty-six consecutive breast cancer patients who underwent a pre-therapeutic 18F-FDG PET/CT and a second PET/CT within the first 6 months of treatment were retrospectively included. Metabolic tumour volume (MTV) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) and Dmax, which represents tumour dissemination and is defined as the distance between the two most distant lesions, were computed. The variation in these parameters between baseline and early evaluation PET as well as therapeutic evaluation using PERCIST were assessed as prognosticators of PFS at 18 months.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was equal to 22.5 months. Thirty progressions occurred (45.4%). The average time to event was 17.8 ± 10.4 months. At baseline, Dmax was the only predictive metabolic parameter. Patients with a baseline Dmax ≤ 18.10 cm had a significantly better 18 m-PFS survival than the others: 69.2% (7.7%) versus 36.7% (8.8%), p = 0.017. There was no association between PERCIST evaluation and 18 m-PFS status (p = 0.149) and there was no difference in 18 m-PFS status between patients classified as complete, partial metabolic responders or having stable metabolic disease.

CONCLUSION

Disease spread at baseline PET, as assessed by Dmax, is predictive of an event occurring within 18 months. In the absence of early metabolic progression, which occurs in 15% of patients, treatment should be continued regardless of the quality of the initial response to treatment.

Joint EANM-SNMMI guideline on the role of 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT in no special type breast cancer : (endorsed by the ACR, ESSO, ESTRO, EUSOBI/ESR, and EUSOMA)

INTRODUCTION

There is much literature about the role of 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT in patients with breast cancer (BC). However, there exists no international guideline with involvement of the nuclear medicine societies about this subject.

PURPOSE

To provide an organized, international, state-of-the-art, and multidisciplinary guideline, led by experts of two nuclear medicine societies (EANM and SNMMI) and representation of important societies in the field of BC (ACR, ESSO, ESTRO, EUSOBI/ESR, and EUSOMA).

METHODS

Literature review and expert discussion were performed with the aim of collecting updated information regarding the role of 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT in patients with no special type (NST) BC and summarizing its indications according to scientific evidence. Recommendations were scored according to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) criteria.

RESULTS

Quantitative PET features (SUV, MTV, TLG) are valuable prognostic parameters. In baseline staging, 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT plays a role from stage IIB through stage IV. When assessing response to therapy, 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT should be performed on certified scanners, and reported either according to PERCIST, EORTC PET, or EANM immunotherapy response criteria, as appropriate. 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT may be useful to assess early metabolic response, particularly in non-metastatic triple-negative and HER2+ tumours. 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT is useful to detect the site and extent of recurrence when conventional imaging methods are equivocal and when there is clinical and/or laboratorial suspicion of relapse. Recent developments are promising.

CONCLUSION

2-[18F]FDG PET/CT is extremely useful in BC management, as supported by extensive evidence of its utility compared to other imaging modalities in several clinical scenarios.

Quarter-Century Transformation of Oncology: Positron Emission Tomography for Patients with Breast Cancer

PET radiotracers have become indispensable in the care of patients with breast cancer. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose has become the preferred method of many oncologists for systemic staging of breast cancer at initial diagnosis, detecting recurrent disease, and for measuring treatment response after therapy. 18F-Sodium Fluoride is valuable for detection of osseous metastases. 18F-fluoroestradiol is now FDA-approved with multiple appropriate clinical uses. There are multiple PET radiotracers in clinical trials, which may add utility of PET imaging for patients with breast cancer in the future. This article will describe the advances during the last quarter century in PET for patients with breast cancer.

Women's Health Update: Growing Role of PET for Patients with Breast Cancer

Positron Emission Tomography (PET) has been growing in usage for patients with breast cancer, due to an increased number of FDA-approved PET radiotracers pertinent to patients with breast cancer as well as increased prospective evidence for the value of these agents. The leading PET radiotracer for patients with breast cancer is 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG), which measures glucose metabolism. There is prospective evidence for the use of 18F-FDG PET in systemic staging of newly diagnosed locally advanced breast cancer (stages IIB-IIIC), monitoring breast cancer treatment response, and detecting breast cancer recurrence, particularly in no special type (NST) breast cancer. 16α-18F-fluoro-17β-Fluoroestradiol (18F-FES) is a radiolabeled estrogen which evaluates estrogen receptor (ER) accessible for estrogen binding. There is prospective evidence supporting 18F-FES PET as a predictive biomarker for selecting patients with metastatic breast cancer for endocrine therapies. 18F-FES PET has also been shown to be valuable in the evaluation of ER status of lesions which are difficult to biopsy, for evaluation of ER status in lesions that are equivocal on other imaging modalities, and for selecting optimal dosage of novel ER-targeted systemic therapies in early clinical trials. Multiple investigators have suggested 18F-FES PET will have an increasing role for patients with invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC), which is less optimally evaluated by 18F-FDG PET. Sodium 18F-Fluoride (18F-NaF) evaluates bone turnover and has been effective in evaluation of malignancies which commonly metastasize to bone. In patients with metastatic breast cancer, 18F-NaF PET/CT has demonstrated superior sensitivity for osseous metastases than 99mTc-MDP or CT. In addition to these three FDA-approved PET radiotracers, there are multiple novel radiotracers currently in clinical trials with potential to further increase PET usage for patients with breast cancer.

Evaluation of Treatment Response in Patients with Breast Cancer

Breast cancer (BC) remains one of the leading causes of death among women. The management and outcome in BC are strongly influenced by a multidisciplinary approach, which includes available treatment options and different imaging modalities for accurate response assessment. Among breast imaging modalities, MR imaging is the modality of choice in evaluating response to neoadjuvant therapy, whereas F-18 Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography, conventional computed tomography (CT), and bone scan play a vital role in assessing response to therapy in metastatic BC. There is an unmet need for a standardized patient-centric approach to use different imaging methods for response assessment.

Metabolic Positron Emission Tomography in Breast Cancer

Metabolic PET, most commonly 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/computed tomography (CT), has had a major impact on the imaging of breast cancer and can have important clinical applications in appropriate patients. While limited for screening, FDG PET/CT outperforms conventional imaging in locally advanced breast cancer. FDG PET/CT is more sensitive than conventional imaging in assessing treatment response, accurately predicting complete response or nonresponse in early-stage cases. It also aids in determining disease extent and treatment response in the metastatic setting. Further research, including randomized controlled trials with FDG and other metabolic agents such as fluciclovine, is needed for optimal breast cancer imaging.

Predictive value of radiomic signature based on 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT in HER2 status determination for primary breast cancer with equivocal IHC results

PURPOSE

To evaluate the predictive power of 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT-derived radiomic signature in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status determination for primary breast cancer (BC) with equivocal immunohistochemistry (IHC) results for HER2.

METHODS

A total of 154 primary BC with equivocal IHC results for HER2 were retrospectively enrolled in the study. First, the following five conventional PET parameters (SUVmax, SUVmean, SUVpeak, MTV, TLG) were measured and compared between HER2-positive and HER2-negative cohorts. After quantitative radiomic features extraction and reduction, the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) algorithm was used to establish a radiomic signature model. Then, the area under the curve (AUCs) after a receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis, accuracy, sensitivity and specificity were calculated and used as the main outcomes. Finally, a total of 37 BC patients from an external institution were included to perform an external validation.

RESULTS

All the five conventional PET parameters were unable to discriminate between HER2-positive and HER2-negative cohorts for BC (P = 0.104-0.544). Whereas, the developed radiomic signature model was potentially predictive of HER2 status with an of AUC 0.887 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.824-0.950) in the training cohort and 0.766 (95% CI, 0.616-0.916) in the validation cohort, respectively. For external validation, the AUC for the external test cohort was 0.788 (95% CI, 0.633-0.944).

CONCLUSIONS

Radiomic signature based on 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT images was capable of non-invasively predicting the HER2 status with a comparable ability to FISH assay, especially for those with equivocal IHC results for HER2.

Cost-effectiveness of 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT versus CE-CT for response monitoring in patients with metastatic breast cancer: a register-based comparative study

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT compared to CE-CT for response monitoring in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients. The study included 300 biopsy-verified MBC patients treated at Odense University Hospital (Denmark). CE-CT was used in 144 patients, 83 patients underwent 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT, and 73 patients received a combination of both. Hospital resource-based costs (2007-2019) were adjusted to the 2019 level. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated by comparing average costs per patient and gained survival with CE-CT. During a median follow-up of 33.0 months, patients in the 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT group had more short admissions (median 6 vs. 2) and fewer overnight admissions (5 vs. 12) compared to the CE-CT group. The mean total cost per patient was €91,547 for CE-CT, €83,965 for 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT, and €165,784 for the combined group. The ICER for 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT compared to CE-CT was €-527/month, indicating gaining an extra month of survival at a lower cost (€527). 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT was more cost-effective in patients with favorable prognostic factors (oligometastatic or estrogen receptor-positive disease), while CE-CT was more cost-effective in poor prognosis patients (liver/lung metastases or performance status ≥ 2 at baseline). In conclusion, our study suggests that 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT is a cost-effective modality for response monitoring in metastatic breast cancer.

Influence of [18F]FDG-PET/CT on Clinical Management Decisions in Breast Cancer Patients-A PET/CT Registry Study

There is a lack of evidence regarding the clinical impact of [¹⁸F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography ([¹⁸F]FDG-PET/CT, hereinafter referred to as PET/CT), especially regarding management changes and their link to overall survival. We analyzed 52 PET/CTs in 47 stage I-IV breast cancer patients, selected from a prospective oncological PET/CT registry. Indications for PET/CT were primary staging (n = 15), restaging (n = 17), and suspected recurrence (n = 20). PET/CT-induced management changes were categorized as major or minor. PET/CT-induced management changes in 41 of 52 scans (78.8%; 38 of 47 patients (80.9%)), of which major changes were suggested in 18 of 52 scans (34.6%, 17 of 47 patients, 36.2%). PET/CT downstaged 6 of 15 primary staging patients, excluding distant metastases. Major management changes were documented in 3 of 17 restaging exams. PET/CT ruled out clinically suspected recurrence in 6 of 20 cases and confirmed it in 11 of 20. In three cases, locoregional recurrence had already been diagnosed via biopsy. In 30 of 52 exams, additional diagnostic tests were avoided, of which 13 were invasive. PET/CT-based management changes resulted in a 5-year survival rate of 72.3% for the whole study group, 93.3% for the staging group, 53.8% for the restaging group, and 68.4% for the recurrence group. This study shows that PET/CT significantly impacts clinical management decisions in breast cancer patients in different clinical scenarios, potentially determining the patient's tumor stage as the basis for further therapy more reliably and by avoiding unnecessary diagnostic tests.

Prognostic value of [18F]-FDG PET/CT in patients with meta-static breast cancer treated with cyclin-dependent inhibitors

Objective

The addition of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) to endocrine therapy impressively improved the outcome of patients with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer. Despite their great efficacy, not all patients respond to treatment and many of them develop acquired resistance. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the role of [18F]-FDG PET/CT in predicting PFS and OS in breast cancer patients treated with CDK4/6i.

Methods

114 patients who performed an [18F]-FDG PET/CT scan before (PET1) and 2-6 months (PET2) after starting treatment were retrospectively enrolled. Metabolic response was evaluated by EORTC, PERCIST and Deauville Score and correlated to PFS and OS.

Results

In patients who did not progress at PET2 (n = 90), PFS rates were not significantly different between classes of response by EORTC and PERCIST. Conversely, patients showing a Deauville score ≤3 had a longer PFS (median PFS 42 vs 21.0 months; p = 0.008). A higher total metabolic tumor volume at PET1 (TMTV1) was also associated with a shorter PFS (median 18 vs 42 months; p = 0.0026). TMTV1 and Deauville score were the only independent prognostic factors for PFS at multivariate analysis and their combination stratified the population in four definite classes of relapse risk. Conversely, the above parameters did not affect OS which was only influenced by a progressive metabolic disease at PET2 (3-years survival rate 29.8 vs 84.9%; p<0.0001).

Conclusion

TMTV and metabolic response by Deauville score were significant prognostic factors for PFS in patients with breast cancer treated with CDK4/6i. Their determination could help physicians to select patients who may need a closer follow up.

Molecular imaging as biomarker for treatment response and outcome in breast cancer

Molecular imaging, such as positron emission tomography (PET), is increasingly used as biomarker to predict and assess treatment response in breast cancer. The number of biomarkers is expanding with specific tracers for tumour characteristics throughout the body and this information can be used to aid the decision-making process. These measurements include metabolic activity using [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose PET ([18F]FDG-PET), oestrogen receptor (ER) expression using 16α-[18F]Fluoro-17β-oestradiol ([18F]FES)-PET and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression using PET with radiolabelled trastuzumab (HER2-PET). In early breast cancer, baseline [18F]FDG-PET is frequently used for staging, but limited subtype-specific data reduce its usefulness as biomarker for treatment response or outcome. Early metabolic change on serial [18F]FDG-PET is increasingly used in the neo-adjuvant setting as dynamic biomarker to predict pathological complete response to systemic therapy, potentially allowing de-intensification or step-up intensification of treatment. In the metastatic setting, baseline [18F]FDG-PET and [18F]FES-PET can be used as biomarker to predict treatment response, in triple-negative and ER-positive breast cancer, respectively. Metabolic progression on repeated [18F]FDG-PET appears to precede progressive disease on standard evaluation imaging; however, subtype-specific studies are limited and more prospective data are needed before implementation in clinical practice. Even though (repeated) [18F]FDG-PET, [18F]FES-PET and HER2-PEt all show promising results as biomarkers to predict therapy response and outcome, for eventual integration into clinical practice, future studies will have to clarify at what timepoint this integration has to optimally take place.

2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT is a better predictor of survival than conventional CT: a prospective study of response monitoring in metastatic breast cancer

This study aimed to compare CE-CT and 2-[¹⁸F]FDG-PET/CT for response monitoring metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The primary objective was to predict progression-free and disease-specific survival for responders vs. non-responders on CE-CT and 2-[¹⁸F]FDG-PET/CT. The secondary objective was to assess agreement between response categorization for the two modalities. Treatment response in women with MBC was monitored prospectively by simultaneous CE-CT and 2-[¹⁸F]FDG-PET/CT, allowing participants to serve as their own controls. The standardized response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST 1.1) and PET response criteria in solid tumors (PERCIST) were used for response categorization. For prediction of progression-free and disease-specific survival, treatment response was dichotomized into responders (partial and complete response) and non-responders (stable and progressive disease) at the first follow-up scan. Progression-free survival was defined as the time from baseline until disease progression or death from any cause. Disease-specific survival was defined as the time from baseline until breast cancer-specific death. Agreement between response categorization for both modalities was analyzed for all response categories and responders vs. non-responders. At the first follow-up, tumor response was reported more often by 2-[¹⁸F]FDG-PET/CT than CE-CT, with only fair agreement on response categorization between the two modalities (weighted Kappa 0.28). Two-year progression-free survival for responders vs. non-responders by CE-CT was 54.2% vs. 46.0%, compared with 59.1% vs. 14.3% by 2-[¹⁸F]FDG-PET/CT. Correspondingly, 2-year disease-specific survival were 83.3% vs. 77.8% for CE-CT and 84.6% vs. 61.9% for 2-[¹⁸F]FDG-PET/CT. Tumor response on 2-[¹⁸F]FDG-PET/CT was significantly associated with progression-free (HR: 3.49, P < 0.001) and disease-specific survival (HR 2.35, P = 0.008), while no association was found for tumor response on CE-CT. In conclusion, 2-[¹⁸F]FDG-PET/CT appears a better predictor of progression-free and disease-specific survival than CE-CT when used to monitor metastatic breast cancer. In addition, we found low concordance between response categorization between the two modalities.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical.

TRIALS

gov. NCT03358589. Registered 30/11/2017-Retrospectively registered, http://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov.

Comparison of Image Quality and Quantification Parameters between Q.Clear and OSEM Reconstruction Methods on FDG-PET/CT Images in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer

We compared the image quality and quantification parameters through bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm (Q.Clear) and ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) algorithm for 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT scans performed for response monitoring in patients with metastatic breast cancer in prospective setting. We included 37 metastatic breast cancer patients diagnosed and monitored with 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT at Odense University Hospital (Denmark). A total of 100 scans were analyzed blinded toward Q.Clear and OSEM reconstruction algorithms regarding image quality parameters (noise, sharpness, contrast, diagnostic confidence, artefacts, and blotchy appearance) using a five-point scale. The hottest lesion was selected in scans with measurable disease, considering the same volume of interest in both reconstruction methods. SULpeak (g/mL) and SUVmax (g/mL) were compared for the same hottest lesion. There was no significant difference regarding noise, diagnostic confidence, and artefacts within reconstruction methods; Q.Clear had significantly better sharpness (p < 0.001) and contrast (p = 0.001) than the OSEM reconstruction, while the OSEM reconstruction had significantly less blotchy appearance compared with Q.Clear reconstruction (p < 0.001). Quantitative analysis on 75/100 scans indicated that Q.Clear reconstruction had significantly higher SULpeak (5.33 ± 2.8 vs. 4.85 ± 2.5, p < 0.001) and SUVmax (8.27 ± 4.8 vs. 6.90 ± 3.8, p < 0.001) compared with OSEM reconstruction. In conclusion, Q.Clear reconstruction revealed better sharpness, better contrast, higher SUVmax, and higher SULpeak, while OSEM reconstruction had less blotchy appearance.

Response Monitoring in Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Prospective Study Comparing 18F-FDG PET/CT with Conventional CT

This study aimed to compare contrast-enhanced CT (CE-CT) and 18F-FDG PET/CT for response monitoring in metastatic breast cancer using the standardized response evaluation criteria RECIST 1.1 and PERCIST. The objective was to examine whether progressive disease was detected systematically earlier by one of the modalities. Methods: Women with biopsy-verified metastatic breast cancer were enrolled prospectively and monitored using combined CE-CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT every 9-12 wk to evaluate response to first-line treatment. CE-CT scans and RECIST 1.1 were used for clinical decision-making without accessing the 18F-FDG PET/CT scans. At study completion, 18F-FDG PET/CT scans were unmasked and assessed according to PERCIST. Visual assessment was used if response criteria could not be applied. The modality-specific time to progression was defined as the time from the baseline scan until the first scan demonstrating progression. Paired comparative analyses for CE-CT versus 18F-FDG PET/CT were applied, and the primary endpoint was earlier detection of progression by one modality. Secondary endpoints were time to detection of progression, response categorization, visualization of changes in response over time, and measurable disease according to RECIST and PERCIST. Results: In total, 87 women were evaluable, with a median of 6 (1-11) follow-up scans. Progression was detected first by 18F-FDG PET/CT in 43 (49.4%) of 87 patients and first by CE-CT in 1 (1.15%) of 87 patients (P < 0.0001). Excluding patients without progression (n = 32), progression was seen first on 18F-FDG PET/CT in 78.2% (43/55) of patients. The median time from detection of progression by 18F-FDG PET/CT to that of CE-CT was 6 mo (95% CI, 4.3-6.4 mo). At baseline, 76 (87.4%) of 87 patients had measurable disease according to PERCIST and 51 (58.6%) of 87 patients had measurable disease according to RECIST 1.1. Moreover, 18F-FDG PET/CT provided improved visualization of changes in response over time, as seen in the graphical abstract. Conclusion: Disease progression was detected earlier by 18F-FDG PET/CT than by CE-CT in most patients, with a potentially clinically relevant median 6-mo delay for CE-CT. More patients had measurable disease according to PERCIST than according to RECIST 1.1. The magnitude of the final benefit for patients is a perspective for future research.

A role of FDG-PET/CT for response evaluation in metastatic breast cancer?

Breast cancer prognosis is steadily improving due to early detection of primary cancer in screening programs and revolutionizing treatment development. In the metastatic setting, therapy improvements render breast cancer a chronic disease. Although FDG-PET/CT has emerged as a highly accurate method for staging metastatic breast cancer, there has been no change in response evaluation methods for decades. FDG-PET/CT has proven high prognostic values in patients with metastatic breast cancer when using quantitative PET methods. It has also shown a higher predictive value than conventional CT when applying the respective response evaluation criteria, RECIST and PERCIST. Response categorization using FDG-PET/CT is more sensitive in detecting progressive and regressive disease, while conventional imaging such as CT and bone scintigraphy deem stable disease more often. These findings reflect the higher accuracy of FDG-PET/CT for response evaluation in this patient group. But does the higher accuracy of FDG-PET/CT translate into a patient benefit when implementing it for monitoring response to palliative treatment? We have evidence of survival benefit from a retrospective study indicating the superiority of using FDG-PET/CT compared with conventional imaging for response evaluation in metastatic breast cancer patients. The survival benefit seems to result from earlier detection of progression with FDG-PET/CT than conventional imaging, leading to an earlier change in treatment with potentially better efficacy of the subsequent treatment line. FDG-PET/CT can be used semiquantitatively as suggested in PERCIST. However, we still need to improve clinically applicable methods based on neural network modeling to better integrate the quantitative information in a smart and standardized way, enabling relevant comparability between scans, patients, and institutions. Such innovation is warranted to support imaging specialists in diagnostic response assessment. Prospective multicenter studies analyzing patients' survival, quality of life, societal and patient costs of replacing conventional imaging with FDG-PET/CT are needed before firm conclusions can be drawn on which type of scan to recommend in future clinical guidelines.